ACTs ability to have an MMP parliamentary presence, “coat tailing” under the high 5% threshold not withstanding, was worthy of support for a while. Sunlight is usually best to paraphrase an old line.

But the Super City debacle where the worst kind of Corporatism and sinking lid economics were proscribed for the city and National’s duplicitous regular Trojan Horsing of ACT finished it for me. Should Banksie stay or should he go? Don’t care, ACT is now officially munted. Zero point zero (0.0) in last RM poll.

National made a serious political strategic error in choosing to keep alive a party that should instead have had it's life support switched off and left to die.

It was a one-term solution. If National had been serious about sewing up their hold on power for a decade or two they would have come to an accommodation with the Greens. That would have stuffed Labour for decades, if not for all time.

However, National would need to renounce a lot of their political positions in order to be in any way acceptable to the Greens' members. Remember, the Green Party list is decided by the membership, as is the Party leadership, and if they started getting overly cosy with the National Party as it stands they'd find themselves all looking into the grave of their political careers at the next election because they'd be collectively voted off the Green Party island by a membership who don't want a bar of the neo-liberal economic consensus.

Except that they need that one seat otherwise they might not actually be the government. Which would also be a political strategic error.

Are you telling me National wouldn't have won Epsom? The error was twofold. First of all, in assuming that ACT would coat tail more than one MP into the house and secondly that keeping a Zombie alive in the hope of a miracle vaccine only ever works in the movies.

As it is, ACT's only use is to be a figleaf for accelerating rightward drift of Key's government.

Once upon a time a sometime McGillicuddy Serious candidate was hauled before a Hamilton court for failing to complete a census return. He gave the excuse that, at the appointed moment for which one is supposed to furnish personal details, he'd been lying insensible while possessed by the spirit of "pithecanthropus". After prompting by the judge he admitted to having deliberately invoked the possession, and was let go with a token penalty.

Perhaps there's some kind of legal precedent there for Banks, who deliberately invoked the wizened incubus of ACT to build a bunkhouse in his little black heart.

I think the Greens and their wider support are a broader church than most realise in that not every Green or green is a lefty. And compromise and consensus is part of the Green Party practice and philosophy wich makes them eminently suited to be a partner in an MMP government. The problem is more with both National and Labour still operating as near as they can to first-past-the-post governments so as not to allow smaller parties a voice.

Labour has no droit de seigneur over MMP hook-ups with the Greens. Some of us will never forget Labour's treatment of the Greens after the 2005 election.

Banks probably thinks he is safe in claiming that he doesn’t know which PARTICULAR 25k donation came from who

However, looking at the law, I don't see that one washing. Perhaps Graeme can comment better, but I just don't read that law as written to allow a known donor of a specific sum of money to be listed as anonymous. The process for being a proper anonymous donor is well-known (you deposit cash as "A. Nonymous" or <blank>, or you go through a lawyer's trust fund) and doing anything else isn't donating anonymously, especially if a sum of money previously discussed suddenly appears in your bank account in the particular configuration previously discussed.

He may squeeze through that loophole. However, he does not seem to be the kind of person we really want representing the citizens of New Zealand or even of Epsom ... well maybe he is appropriate to represent Epsom.

Don't think that's true though --- the prospect of a labour-led gov't after that election was very little.

There's only a couple of seats in it, which is why Goldsmith was MIA, and National voters swallowed Banks like a dead rat. It wasn't a strategic blunder, it was a vitally important seat, and it still is. Even if a Labour led government was still highly unlikely, every seat when you're that close matters. Also ACT is extremely convenient for National in terms of being able to take the fall for all National's policy.

Are you telling me National wouldn't have won Epsom? The error was twofold. First of all, in assuming that ACT would coat tail more than one MP into the house and secondly that keeping a Zombie alive in the hope of a miracle vaccine only ever works in the movies.

No, I'm not. You're about the 50th person I've had to explain the maths of this to - ACT getting Epsom gives National an effective bonus seat, even if they got no further seats. Why? Because ACT's seat does not count against the National total seats. If National won the seat, they would get one less list MP (so their numbers would be unaffected) and there wouldn't be the ACT MP supporting them in parliament.

Also, having that fall guy to the right is extremely convenient. National doesn't have to own the whole charter schools idea. They can claim asset sales are a vital part of their coalition deal. etc.

ETA:

As it is, ACT's only use is to be a figleaf for accelerating rightward drift of Key's government.

I'm not underestimating how important that is for the Key government. If Banks was actually forced to resign, by some legal miracle, I'd fully expect National to support voting for ACT in Epsom again, just to keep the party alive. I would like it if that didn't happen, but I've gotten used to what I like not happening in NZ politics.

The problem is more with both National and Labour still operating as near as they can to first-past-the-post governments so as not to allow smaller parties a voice.

Speaking as a Green member, I can assure you that the problem with National is that their policies are typically diametrically opposed to Green policies; any overlap in policy is vanishingly small compared to the wider policy programme being delivered by National.

Labour, OTOH, have been adopting Green policies for a while now, so I see a lot more chance of entering a coalition with Labour in 2014.

Until then, a nobbled National government is about the best we can hope for. Still, that's better than the status quo.

And this seems likely to be the real issue for Key. He can't get rid of Banks as things stand, but Banks' continued presence is going to be poisonous.

John Banks can be got rid of the same way Rodney Hide was removed - by an internal coup within Act forcing his resignation. Then an by-election will be held with National standing on the sidelines again meaning the Act candidate wins.

Speaking as another Green, I agree with some of what you are saying but I'm more a pragmatic Green in that I don't expect a green government but I would work in whatever way gave Greens most policy influence over the government party. That is not possible with a Key National govt but it could be possible with a different National. govt. Labour have, in the past, adopted some Green policies (mainly to attract voters away from the Green Party) only to put them them very far away on the backburner when in government.

One of the things I like about the Greens is the very having of this debate. Now, back to that toad Banks...

ACT getting Epsom gives National an effective bonus seat, even if they got no further seats. Why? Because ACT's seat does not count against the National total seats

Well pointed out.

That is a very good reason to move to single vote MMP (where the party vote is given to the party of each electors chosen candidate). This would remove the abilit for that kind of abuse, because not running a candidate or running a non-campaign would lose party votes.

One thing I find a bit puzzling about all of this, is why? Why did Banks bother to claim the Sky City donations as anonymous?

Sky City, like many businesses, regularly makes equal donations to all the serious mayoral candidates. So everyone knew already that they were going to give the same amount to Len Brown AND John Banks.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Kim Dotcom had made donations to multiple candidates and not just John Banks.

So given that we know Banks is receiving donations why bother with trying to hide them. It all seems like a lot of effort to hide something that is of little real importance.

The only time it ever becomes important is if you intend to abuse your position to provide benefit to your contributors and despite personally believing that Banks is scum of the first order I actually doubt he would do that.